Why won't we marry/given in marriage in the Resurrection?

[Paidion]

It is interesting - and it was Jesus who said that God was the God of the living. I guess this might be used to support the belief that the faithful 'dead' are already in God's presence

Plenty of people do use these words to support the idea of going directly into God's presence at death. Contextually, however, this cannot be the meaning. Jesus was responding the Sadducees who did not believe in the ressurection. They did not believe that anyone was raised to life again at some point after death..

And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong. Mark 12:26,27

The thought may be expressed as follows. If God does not raise the dead, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not be raised to life again. If they remain dead, how can God be their God? God is not the God of dead people. However, if they are raised to life, God will continue to be their God. If Jesus had been talking about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob being in the presence of God at the time God spoke to Moses, He would not have been addressing the question of personal ressurection, but the issue of the immortality of the "souls" of the righteous. However, Jesus introduces His argument with "As for the dead being raised..." Clearly then, it is the issue of personal ressurection with which He then dealt.

[karenstricycle]

.

[Suzana]

It is interesting - and it was Jesus who said that God was the God of the living. I guess this might be used to support the belief that the faithful 'dead' are already in God's presence

Plenty of people do use these words to support the idea of going directly into God's presence at death. Contextually, however, this cannot be the meaning. Jesus was responding the Sadducees who did not believe in the ressurection. They did not believe that anyone was raised to life again at some point after death..

And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong. Mark 12:26,27

The thought may be expressed as follows. If God does not raise the dead, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not be raised to life again. If they remain dead, how can God be their God? God is not the God of dead people. However, if they are raised to life, God will continue to be their God. If Jesus had been talking about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob being in the presence of God at the time God spoke to Moses, He would not have been addressing the question of personal ressurection, but the issue of the immortality of the "souls" of the righteous. However, Jesus introduces His argument with "As for the dead being raised..." Clearly then, it is the issue of personal ressurection with which He then dealt.

You do have a point about the context.
But I think perhaps although that is what Jesus was specifically addressing with the Sadducees, one could argue that does not necessarily nullify the possibility of ‘the immortality of the "souls" of the righteous’ –
It could be ‘both and’ rather than ‘either or’.
In other words, it may be possible to understand it in this way:
If God does not raise the dead, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not be bodily raised to life again. And by the way, since God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, their spirits are alive even now.
(Otherwise they would be in the position, right now, of being without God – an interesting thought, as Michelle pointed out).

I guess one’s understanding and view of what happens at death would have to be arrived at by considering all the relevant passages and the scriptures as a whole.

[karenstricycle]

.

[Suzana]

(I'm on a short timed public computer). What about Moses conversing with Jesus, seen also by some of the disciples on the Mt.of transfiguration. Or of the devil arguing if Moses had ever actually died or not. Of Enoch, or Elijah mearly being "Taken up", or "in a twinkling of an eye", or that some shall never taste death. Or that, at the time of the ressurection of The Christ, only those saints from Adam to Moses (before the law?) were raised. Of "glorified beings" verses "ressurected beings" verses the form of Angles not born as men. A general ressurection topic maybe...

Karen, some of these issues have been discussed on the forum HERE, if you'd like to have a read. "Are We Dead When We're Dead (until the resurrection)?"

[Jill]

.

[kaufmannphillips]

Edted from another forum :

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 964#p32964

The reference in Matthew may be to ignorance of the nature of the scripture: it is a legal device, a hedge against the vicissitudes of this present world.

In the present world, the scripture lays out a paradigm for how to deal with the challenge of widowhood; this paradigm involves the legal contract of marriage, which was (then as now) a social and economic contract. But in thinking about the world to come, it may have been felt that certain facts of life would have changed, so that some elements of the scripture were no longer directly relevant (e.g., legal material pertaining to war).

In the resurrection, it may have been felt that people would no longer have spousal relations, so the contract of marriage would be unnecessary. Alternately, it may have been thought that people would be in close enough harmony with G-d's will that they would not need the legal contract of marriage as a hedge to guard the spousal arrangement that G-d intends.

The question hinges upon what is construed from being like angels: is it being unspoused (assuming that angels are so oriented); or is it being faithful to G-d? We may compare, on this point, the variant in Luke 20:36.

The question also hinges upon whether or not spousal relationship is to be understood as indistinguishable from contract of marriage.

[Paidion]

The question hinges upon what is construed from being like angels: is it being unspoused (assuming that angels are so oriented); or is it being faithful to G-d? We may compare, on this point, the variant in Luke 20:36.

In the Luke reference above, Jesus seems to have been saying that the REASON there will be no marrying or giving in marriage in the ressurection, is that the resurrected persons will not die any more. Thoughts anyone?

[kaufmannphillips]

Paidion wrote:

In the Luke reference above, Jesus seems to have been saying that the REASON there will be no marrying or giving in marriage in the ressurection, is that the resurrected persons will not die any more. Thoughts anyone?

On one level, the point about not dying may draw a contrast between this world and the world to come. The basic problem is that the Sadducees are thinking about the next world according to the categories of this present one.

This world has a legal contract - marriage - that addresses widowhood, in order to provide for the social and economic difficulty posed by a husband's death. The world to come is a different situation, where such a provision is no longer of direct relevance. Other legal categories that are important in this world, such as indebtedness, may no longer have direct relevance in the next world. Who will be keeping accounts, when people are eager to give to their neighbor in love, and are not too prideful to receive others' giving freely?

On another level, the point may allow the inference that these persons won't die, because they are fully alive with true, g-dly life ("[they] are sons of G-d, being sons of the resurrection"). Being alive in this manner, they do not need legal devices to hedge them from death. They can conduct their spousal relations without falling into the lethal diversions of adultery or spousal neglect.

May I also point out that the gospels do not say anything explicitly about there not being reproduction in the world to come. In Second Temple period Jewish literature, there is evidence of some thought that angels could reproduce, so being like the angels may not connote sterlility.